Author
Topic: !00mm macro L or non L (Read 7647 times)

The IS is incredibly helpful in framing handheld too! Even though a fast shutter speed/ flash can negate the need for IS, it wont help you when you are trying to frame close-up. To me, that has been the biggest difference between the 2.

I had the L, then sold it & got the non-L as I don't use the focal length or shoot macro too often to justify "needing" it. The non-L is wonderful too.

The way I looked at it when I bought my 100 L is I first tried a friend's non-L and liked it, but no IS and the AF not as good on non-macro. So it was a lens that was very good at one thing (macro) and useable for another (non-macro). The L with IS (and it definitely does help a bunch with handheld macro) and better AF at distance turns out to be a lens that is very, very good at two very different things. So yes, worth the price for me.

I like Macro lenses as I like the sharpness and they tend to be pretty distortion free. I have used my Pentax 645 120 Macro lens to do panoramics: lots of detail, very sharp - the downside is that the final image is too large to save as a .tiff file or a .psd. One is about 7GB in size. Mind you that's thanks in no small part to the 645D's 40 megapixels. The RAW images are 3 - 4 times larger than the mk III's

You didn't mention which lens it is - L or non-L - and rightly so: For indoor macro shots with a tripod it doesn't matter at all. So for these kinds of shots, it's more economic to get the non-L and a couple of flashes for the same price of the L version.

You didn't mention which lens it is - L or non-L - and rightly so: For indoor macro shots with a tripod it doesn't matter at all. So for these kinds of shots, it's more economic to get the non-L and a couple of flashes for the same price of the L version.

i think its one of those things where you should choose the cheaper one because its fine but once you use the more expensive you buy it anyway the 100mm non is a fantastic lens but the 100mm l is perfect at what it does easily one of cannons sharpest lenses even at 2.8 plus the 9 rounded aperture blades ensures smooth bokeh balls at all apertures. Having said that if its actually twice as much where you live probably go for the non L since you obviously don't NEED the features of the L otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question

Logged

aldvan

I have the L versio but I can't compare it with the non-L version.As many stated before me, the L is a very good lens, that I use very often as standard lens, since I like go around catching details of the world around me (a beautiful dish or drink, a flower, the texture of a stone wall etc.), obviously without a tripod.By the way, prices never follow the same curve of performances, in photography as in every technology. To get ten percent more power in a car you will spend well more then ten percent...

I own the L with IS. Never owned previous versions. I have to say, I think that the lens is one of the (if not THE) sharpest lenses that I own. I was a little put off by the thought of spending $1000 on a lens with a plastic barrel....but in retrospect the lens performs so well and it is nice and light in the bag and definitely has a quality feel to it! (did I just say that? LOL~). Now...since the lens is soooooo sharp and has incredible IS ...I find my self using it for MUCH more than macro photography. ...but lets face it....most macro photography is so demanding with high DOF needed that you really do need a tripod, flash etc...but I have been able to push the limit with this lens of what I can shoot close up, on-the-fly because of the IS. I REALLY like this lens. No regrets in my purchase.

I have the non-L version and have IS - my tripod. Do you need IS? - well how much do you want to ditch the tripod - if you don't like carrying a tripod around or it affects your creativity then get the L lens. Simple as that.

I have the non-L version and have IS - my tripod. Do you need IS? - well how much do you want to ditch the tripod - if you don't like carrying a tripod around or it affects your creativity then get the L lens. Simple as that.

And some additional piece of information who hasn't got either lens yet:

* IS doesn't help if shooting at non-optimal light and iso 100 (i.e. lowest noise, highest iq and ability to crop to 100%) because shutter speed still is too low except when shooting with open aperture - but this is far in between for me because the dof is so thin at macro distances.

* IS doesn't freeze the world around you - when shooting butterflies, I'm usually at or above 1/1000s - at these speeds, IS only helps with framing, not with the shot itsself (I know this from my 70-300L).

I have the L and no experience on the non L . I have found the L to be a magnificent lens. Excellent for Macro and for Portraits it has a lovely bokeh. It's hard to tell whether IS is useful or not. At 2.8 the depth of field is so shallow it's hard to tell whether the IS helps or not. I love it as a lens as colours are great on it and the bokeh is very smooth. It's as sharp as tack.http://www.flickr.com/photos/fergalocallaghan/6665297581/#in/set-72157625645417935